Rodney Brooks: why we will rely on robots

June 29, 2013

Scaremongers play on the idea that robots will simply replace people on the job. In fact, they can become our essential collaborators, freeing us up to spend time on less mundane and mechanical challenges. Rodney Brooks points out how valuable this could be as the number of working-age adults drops and the number of retirees swells. He introduces us to Baxter, the robot with eyes that move and arms that react to touch, which could work alongside an aging population — and learn to help them at home, too.

Rodney Brooks builds robots based on biological principles of movement and reasoning. The goal: a robot who can figure things out.

Comments (10)

@ GatorALLin – Wonderful insights…thanks for sharing. Robotics may be one way in which we can free ourselves from mundane, repetitive work and really challenge ourselves to be creative. Our current economic system is based on the cog in the machine, but what if we could turn that on its head and we remain productive members of society by being creatively productive? It will require new economic models, but if we can believe that our money has actual value beyond the materials by which is is made, then we can be creative enough to reinvent our future.

I have no problem with this advert for robotics. I’m not a Luddite. I want what they will bring. That said, it amazes me how little people understand what is happening. This is not like any technological job replacement that has happened before. Ray warns about using past events to gauge our exponential technological growth.

When the Luddite movement happened,, it was in response to a single technologicaljob disruption. When robots hit they will affect every aspect of every job. It’s not just robots. Strong AI will consume far more. Ray like to say that in the past, as jobs were lost at Tge bottom, new jobs will be created on the top. I’d like to know what makes those jobs special that AGI and robotics won’t be better at them than us. Especially since we will be so dependent on cloud thinking. Why not skip the expensive human labor and use the cheap super AI,robotics labor. At the very least, it promises to be extremely disruptive. It should pit tremendous stress on society. It has the potential to incite a massive Luddite response. It’s the speed of transition that will be most alarming.

Turns out that we all react at first with our lizard brains… (at least I do) Change brings fear and fear is the lizard brain hard wired to cause the fight response. My perception is that robots are just part of evolution and to want to stop or fight change is like being upset at the weather when it rains… No one wants to get soaked, but what if the rain turns out to be a good thing? What if change happens for a reason… a reason that it is a better idea. What if better ideas float to the top and there is no way to stop them, and what if you just need to see them differently to take advantage of them?

What if you are better off reinventing yourself. Who wants those factory jobs that does not maximise your human creativity, or anything more than being a gear turning inside the assembly machine.

What if we all have been told a lie? Seth Godin at least thinks so… or thinks you deserve more than just a factory job.

“Years ago, when you were about four years old, the system set out to persuade you of something that isn’t true.

Not just persuade, but drill, practice, reinforce, and yes, brainwash.

The mission: to teach you that you’re average. That compliant work is the best way to a reliable living. That creating average stuff for average people, again and again, is a safe and easy way to get what you want.

Step out of line and the system would nudge (or push) you back to the center. Show signs of real creativity, originality or even genius, and well-meaning parents, teachers and authority figures would eagerly line up to get you back in line.

Our culture needed compliant workers, people who would contribute without complaint, and we set out to create as many of them as we could.

And so generations of students turned into generations of cogs, factory workers in search of a sinecure. We were brainwashed into fitting in, and then discovered that the economy wanted people who stood out instead.

When exactly were we brainwashed into believing that the best way to earn a living is to have a job?

Whether we like this or not this will continue to happen in the future. This will help solve many problems while at the same time creating more problems. We won’t truly know until we cross that bridge.

Of course Rodney Brooks wouldn’t want to admit that robots are displacing workers, since he’s one of the ones creating the robots! The ultimate goal of automation, however, is to either reduce the number of employees or to reduce the need to hire new ones. Otherwise, what would be the point?

While it may be true that his robots can be trained by the average person, what ultimately results from automation is the hollowing out of the middle of the wage/skill ladder, leaving only the very low paid and the extremely high-skill jobs behind.

Brooks’ point is that this can be beneficial IF the number of working-age adults goes down in proportion, which is technically true. However, the problem is that the number of jobs being displaced far exceeds the rate at which job-seekers decrease. In fact, it’s only in a few countries where decrease is actually happening. In the developing world the number of job-seekers is rising and will continue to rise for the next few decades. So I essentially agree with you that the scenario could be disastrous if not handled properly.

“In the developing world the number of job-seekers is rising and will continue to rise for the next few decades.”

I agree with the rest of your post except for this part. I see that the developing world will continue to have products & services done by cheap human labor until the rise of the macro, and micro robots in 15 years or so.

Kurzweil says that we will achieve human level AI by 2029 producing robots that can practically do all the jobs a few years earlier, and full blown nanobots technology in the 2030′s. I imagine that 3D printers should also be working at the molecular level by that time allowing even in the developing world not only for very low cost printed robots, but also for every life necessity to be cheaply manufactured from houses & transport to foodstuff.

I find your belittling comment on Rodney Brooks a bit harsh. Technology is advancing at such a pace that it’s extremely difficult to predict the future, even just a few years from now, even for highly educated people. A new technology may pop up tomorrow that will change everything we had predicted. In fact, I think that is more likely than not. Nobody can keep track of all areas of progress any more and their predictions of the future within their field of expertise may be accurate, but only if nothing changes in any other field, that may affect it. But such changes happen all the time, so predictions are getting ever more inaccurate, the more advanced our technology becomes.

Robots will replace people on the job! Andrew McAfee is NOT a scaremonger, and he is convinced that we are already heading that way, but he believes that society will handle the transition in a positive manner. He also suggest that the people in charge should consider for the long run guaranteed income and such:

Rodney Brooks has charts that go to 2050 showing old retired people on the rise. Well if in 20 years, we’re gonna have full blown nanomedicine, then those 2050 old people are gonna have young bodies. I don’t think that Brooks is understanding the power of exponential IT progress.